I think that the original Author has made a clear point. It has no sense to
denied that we often write a lot of times things like...
if (err != nil) {
return err
}
So, I understand that some people doesn't bother about that, and that is
okey. *But for those that doesn't like to write something twice, I guess
your proposal is a good idea and highlights a boilerplate aspect across any
golang project.*
Great Idea Dr Go!
El martes, 1 de agosto de 2023 a las 10:32:58 UTC-3, Jeremy French escribió:
> I don't think this argument holds much weight. I understand and agree
> that the majority is not always correct. But then what was the point of
> the developer survey, if that data is irrelevant? Isn't the existence of
> the developer survey an implicit statement by the Go team that they care
> about what Go developers think? There is also a very similar argument here
> which was central to the generics debate and was one of the major arguments
> in favor of implementing generics - that it would significantly help some
> people, and it wouldn't hurt anyone else very much. So similarly, "I don't
> mind it the way it is" is not a very good argument.
>
> I don't speak for the Go team, but my impression is that they do care
> about this issue, and would like to reduce the boilerplate/verbosity of
> error handling if they could. But that they have seen hundreds of
> different proposals (thousands if you include variations on a theme), and
> haven't found any that qualify for the requirements that are more important
> to Go's nature than just verbosity.
>
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:10:57 AM UTC-4 Jan Mercl wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 1:47 AM DrGo <salah....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The verbosity of error handling is the number one concern for Go
>> developers in the most recent survey.
>>
>> That says something about those developers, about their preferences,
>> opinions, taste etc and that it differs from what the Original
>> Language Designers (OLD™) preferred.
>>
>> It has close to zero bits of information which preferences are the
>> better ones. It's a subjective category anyway.
>>
>> > So there is a need for doing something about it..
>>
>> And here's IMO the mistake. You may feel the need, Joe and Mary may
>> not. It's ok to have preferences. It's ok for preferences to be
>> different. It does not mean there's a need to change anything. Of
>> course, you can decide that following the preferences of a majority of
>> developers is a rational move.
>>
>> I claim it a fallacy. A big one. Let me not joke about billion flies,
>> but the fact is - language designers are few and far between while
>> developers come in heaps. And let's be honest. Most developers write
>> horrible code, me included. Maybe you're the rare exception, congrats
>> then. But the majority of us are just the ordinary, average coders for
>> hire. There are deadlines to meet, bills to pay, project mis-managers
>> getting into the way etc. We have all experienced that, didn't we?
>>
>> I, for one learned to pay much more attention to what language
>> designers do and say. Sometimes I agree, sometime I don't. But I
>> believe one can, in essence, ignore what the majority of developers
>> thinks about it. Actually, I think the majority of developers is wrong
>> more often than the, most of the time silent, minority.
>>
>> -j
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/227a8423-b52a-47d7-acc4-f47280b2898dn%40googlegroups.com.
